What else to conclude from his attacks on banks — the latest of which came Thursday, two days after the Massachusetts electoral bloodbath?

And from the deafening silence from New York lawmakers like Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand?

Obama proposed stiff limits on bank sizes and the risks they take — while firing a rhetorical fusillade at Wall Street.

“We’re about to get into a big fight with the banks,” he said. Stocks then tanked.

And that blow followed an earlier Wall Street hit: a scheme for $117 billion in new taxes on financial firms.

Mayor Bloomberg went ballistic: “If you tax Wall Street,” he said, “you are taxing all of our firefighters, police officers and teachers, because we just cannot afford to keep all of them working if our tax revenue goes down.”

But just three years ago, Schumer was frantic about New York’s fragile position in the global marketplace: “If New York goes from being the financial capital of the world to becoming only a regional market,” he said, “every aspect of New York life will suffer.”

He was right, of course.

But in the wake of the Massachusetts revolt, the senator stands mute while Obama suddenly waxes populist.

Gillibrand? She’s in favor of Obama’s hit on New York. ‘Nuff said about her.

Sure, reforms are needed. But Obama’s plan wouldn’t solve the problems that led to the crisis. And reforms should strengthen financial firms, not kill them.

Prevent bank growth and reasonable risk-taking, and banks can’t make loans, grow jobs or throw off revenues for the city and state.